text stringlengths 1 17.8k |
|---|
Fundamental Rationale for the Code and ILS' Anti-Doping Rules Anti-doping programs are founded on the intrinsic value of sport. |
This intrinsic value is often referre d to as "the spirit of sport": the ethical pursuit of human excellence through the dedicated perfection of each Athlete’s natural talents. |
Anti-doping programs seek to protect the health of Athletes and to provide the opportunity for Athletes to pursue human excellence without the Use of Prohibited Substances and Methods . |
Anti-doping programs seek to maintain the integrity of sport in terms of respect for rules, other competitors, fair competition, a level playing field, and the value of clean sport to the world. |
The spirit of sport is the celebration of the human spirit, body and mind. |
It is the essence of Olympism and is reflected in the values we find in and through sport, including: • Health • Ethics, fair play and honesty • Athletes’ rights as set forth in the Code • Excellence in performance • Character and Education ILS Ant -Doping Rules 2021 Page 4 of 64 • Fun and joy • Teamwork ... |
Doping is fundamentally contrary to the spirit of sport. |
Scope of these Anti -Doping Rules These Anti -Doping Rules shall apply to: (a) ILS, including its board members, directors, officers and specified employees , and Delegated Third Parties and their employees, who are involved in any aspect of Doping Control ; (b) each of its National Federations , including their... |
Each of the abovementioned Persons is deemed, as a condition of his or her participation or involvement in the sport, to have agreed to and be bound by these Anti-Doping Rules, and to have submitted to the authority of ILS to enforce these Anti -Doping Rules, including any Consequences for a breach of them , and t... |
Rather, such Person would only be subject to discipline for a violation of Code Articles 2.5 (Tampering), 2.7 (Trafficking), 2.8 (Administration), 2.9 (Complicity), 2. |
10 (Prohi bited Association) and 2.11 (Retaliation). |
Furthermore, such Person would be subject to the additional roles and responsibilities according to Code Article 21.3. |
Also, the obligation to require an employee to be bound by the Code is subje ct to applicable l aw. |
ILS Ant -Doping Rules 2021 Page 5 of 64 Within the overall pool of Athletes set out above who are bound by and required to comply with these Anti -Doping Rules, the following Athletes shall be considered to be International -Level Athletes for the purpose s of these Anti -Doping Rules, and, therefore, the specific ... |
ARTICLE 2 ANTI -DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS The purpose of Article 2 is to specify the circumstances and conduct which constitute anti -doping rule violations. |
Hearings in doping cases will proceed based on the assertion that one or more of these specific rules have been violated. |
Athletes or other Persons shall be responsible for knowing what constitute s an anti -doping rule violation and the substances and methods which have been included on the Prohibited List . |
The following constitute anti -doping rule violations: 2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample 2.1.1 It is the Athletes ’ personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies. |
Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples . |
Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault , Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti -doping rule violation under Article 2.1. |
2 2.1.2 Sufficient proof of an anti -doping rule violation under Article 2.1 is established by any of the following: presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in the Athlete’s A Sample where the Athlete waives analysis of the B Sample and the B Sample is not analyzed; or, where the ... |
2 Comment to Article 2.1.1: An anti -doping rule violation is committed under this Article without regard to an Athlete’s Fault. |
This rule has been referred to in various CAS decisions as “Strict Liability”. |
An Athlete’s Fault is taken into consideration in d etermining the Consequence s of this anti -doping rule violation under Article 10. |
This principle has consistently been upheld by CAS. |
ILS Ant -Doping Rules 2021 Page 6 of 64 Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the first part of the split Sample or the Athlete waives analys is of the confirmation part of the split Sample .3 2.1.3 Excepting those substances for which a Decision Limit is specifically identified in th... |
2.1.4 As an exception to the general rule of Article 2.1 , the Prohibited List , International Standards or Technical Documents may establish special criteria for reporting or the evaluation of certain Prohibited Substances . |
2.2 Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method 4 2.2.1 It is the Athletes ’ personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their bodies and that no Prohibited Method is Used . |
Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault , Negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in orde r to establish an anti -doping rule violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method . |
2.2.2 The success or failure of the Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not material. |
It is sufficient that the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method was Used or Attempted to be Used for an anti -doping rule violation to be committed.5 2.3 Evading, Refusing or Failing to Submit to Sample Collection by an Athlete Evading Sample collection; or refusing or failing to submit to Sample coll... |
4 Comment to Article 2.2: It has always been the case that Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method may be established by any reliable means. |
As noted in the Comment to Article 3.2, unlike the proof required to establish an anti -doping rule violation under Article 2.1, Use or Attempted Use may also be established by other reliable means such as admissions by the Athlete, witness statements, documentary evidence, conclusions drawn from longitudinal profili... |
For example, Use may be established based upon reliable analytical data from the analysis of an A Sample (without confirmatio n from an analysis of a B Sample) or from the analysis of a B Sample alone where the Anti -Doping Organizat ion provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other Samp... |
5 Comment to Article 2.2.2: Demonstrating the "Attempted Use" of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method requires proof of intent on the Athlete’s part. |
The fact that intent may be required to prove this particular anti -doping rule violation does not undermine the Strict Liability principle established for violations of Article 2.1 and violations of Article 2.2 in respect of Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method. |
An Athlete’s Use of a Prohibited Substance constitutes an anti -doping rule violation unless such substance is not prohibited Out -of-Competition and the Athlete’s Use takes place Out -of-Competition. |
(However, the presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a Sample collected In -Competition is a violation of Article 2.1 regardless of when that substance might have been administered .) |
6 Comment to Article 2.3: Error! |
Main Document Only. |
For example, it would be an anti -doping rule violation of “evading Sample collection” if it were established that an Athlete was deliberately avoiding a Doping Control official to evade notification or Testing. |
A violation of “failing to submit to Sample collection” may be based on either intentional or negligent conduct of the Athlete, while “evading” or “refusing” Sample collection contemplates intentional conduct by the Athlete. |
ILS Ant -Doping Rules 2021 Page 7 of 64 2.4 Whereabouts Failures by an Athlete Any combination of three (3) missed tests and/or filing failures , as defined in the International Standard for Results Management , within a twelve (12) month period by an Athlete in a Registered Testing Pool. |
2.5 Tampering or Attempted Tampering with any Part of Doping Control by an Athlete or Other Person 2.6 Possession of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method by an Athlete or Athlete Support Person 2.6.1 Possession by an Athlete In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method ... |
2.6.2 Possession by an Athlete Support Person In -Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method , or Possession by an Athlete Support Person Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method which is prohibited Out-of-Competition in connection with an Athlete , Compet... |
7 2.7 Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking in any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method by an Athlete or Other Person 2.8 Administration or Attempt ed Administration by an Athlete or Other Person to any Athlete In -Competition of any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method , or Administration or... |
Comment to Article 2.6.1 and 2.6.2: Acceptable justification may include, for example, (a) an Athlete or a team doctor carrying Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods for dealing with acute and emergency situations (e.g., an epinephrine auto -injector), or (b) an Athlete Possessing a Prohibited Substance or Prohib... |
8 Comment to Article 2.9: Complicity or Attempted Complicity may include either physical or psychological assistance. |
ILS Ant -Doping Rules 2021 Page 8 of 64 2.10 Prohibited Association by an Athlete or Other Person 2.10.1 Association by an Athlete or other Person subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organization in a professional or sport -related capacity with any Athlete Support Person who: 2.10.1.1 If subject... |
The disqualifying status of such Person shall be in force for the longer of six (6) years from the criminal, professional or disciplinary decision or the duration of the criminal, disciplinary or professional sanction imposed; or 2.10.1.3 Is serving as a front or intermediary for an individual described in Artic... |
2.10.2 To establish a violation of Article 2.10 , an Anti-Doping Organization must establish that the Athlete or other Person knew of the Athlete Support Person’ s disqualifying status. |
The burden shall be on the Athlete or other Person to establish that any association with an Athlete Support Person described in Article 2.10.1.1 or 2.10.1.2 is not in a professional or sport -related capacity and/or that such asso ciation could not have been reasonably avoided. |
Anti-Doping Organizations that are aware of Athlete Support Personnel who meet the criteria described in Article 2.10.1.1, 2.10.1.2 or 2.10.1.3 shall submit that information to WADA .9 2.11 Acts by an Athlete or Other Person to Discourage or Retaliate Against Reporting to Authorities Where such conduct does no... |
This also prohibits association with any other Athlete who is acting as a coach or Athlete Support Person while serving a period of Ineligibility. |
Som e examples of the types of association which are prohibited include: obtaining training, strategy, technique, nutrition or medical advice; obtaining therapy, treatment or prescriptions; providing any bodi ly products for analysis; or allowing the Athlete Su pport Person to serve as an agent or representative. |
Prohibited association need not involve any form of compensation. |
While Article 2.10 does not require the Anti -Doping Organization to notify the Athlete or other Person about the Athlete Support Person’s disqualifying status, such notice , if provided , would be important evidence to establish that the Athlete or other Person knew about the disqualifying status of the Athlete Suppo... |
ILS Ant -Doping Rules 2021 Page 9 of 64 professional disciplinary body, hearing body or Person conducting an investigation for WADA or an Anti-Doping Organization . |
2.11.2 Retaliation against a Person who, in good faith, has provided evidence or information that relates to an alleged anti -doping rule violation or alleged non -compliance with the Code to WADA , an Anti-Doping Organization , law enforcement, regulatory or professional disciplinary body, hearing body or Person ... |
For purposes of Article 2.11 , retaliation, threatening and intimidation include an act taken against such Person either because the act lacks a good faith basis or is a disproportionate response.10 ARTICLE 3 PROOF OF DOPING 3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof ILS shall have the burden of establishing that an ... |
The standard of proof shall be whether ILS has established an anti -doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriou sness of the allegation which is made. |
This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Where these Anti -Doping Rules place the burden of proof upon the Athlete or other Person alleged to have committed an anti -doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, except as provided in Articles 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 , the standard of proof shall be by a balance of proba... |
Any Athlete or other Person seeking to challenge wheth er the conditions for such presumption have been met or to rebut th is presumption of scientific validity shall, as a condition precedent to any such challenge, first notify WADA of the challenge and the basis of the challenge. |
The initial hearing body, app ellate body or CAS, on its own initiative, may also inform WADA of any such challenge. |
Within ten (10) days of WADA’s receipt of such notice and the case file related to such challenge, WADA shall also have the right to intervene as a party, appear as 10 Comment to Article 2.11.2: This Article is intended to protect Persons who make good faith reports, and does not protect Persons who knowingly mak... |
Comment to Article 2.11.2: Retaliation would include, for example, actions that threaten the physical or mental well -being or economic interests of the reporting Persons, their families or associates. |
Retaliation would not include an Anti -Doping Organization asserting in good faith an anti -doping rule violation against the reporting Person. |
For pu rposes of Article 2.11, a report is not made in good faith where the Person making the report knows the report to be false. |
11 Comment to Article 3.1: This standard of proof required to be met by ILS is comparable to the standard which is applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct. |
12 Comment to Article 3.2: For example, ILS may establish an anti -doping rule violation under Article 2.2 based on the Athlete’s admissions, the credible testimony of third Persons, reliable documentary evidence, reliable analytical data from either an A or B Sample as provided in the Comments to A rticle 2.2, or ... |
ILS Ant -Doping Rules 2021 Page 10 of 64 amic us curiae or otherwise provide evidence in such proceeding. |
In cases before CAS, at WADA ’s request, the CAS panel shall appoint an appropriate scientific expert to assist the panel in its evaluation of the challenge.13 3.2.2 WADA -accredited laboratories, and other laboratories approved by WADA , are presumed to have conducted Sample analysis and custodial procedures in acc... |
The Athlete or other Person may rebut this presumptio n by establishing that a departure from the International Standard for Laboratories occurred which could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding . |
If the Athlete or other Person rebuts the preceding presumption by showing that a departure fr om the International Standard for Laboratories occurred which could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding , then ILS shall have the burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytic... |
WADA’s decision in determining that Minimum Reporting Level or in determining which Prohibited Substances should be subject to Minimum Reporting Levels shall not be subject to challenge. |
Further, the laborator y’s estimated concentration of such Prohibited Substance in a Sample may only be an estimate. |
In no event shall t he possibility that the exact concentration of the Prohibited Substance in the Sample may be below the Minimum Reporting Level constitute a defense to an anti -doping rule violation based on the presence of that Prohibited Substance in the Sample. |
14 Comment to Article 3.2.2 : The burden is on the Athlete or other Person to establish, by a balance of probability, a departure from the International Standard for Laboratories that could reasonably have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding. |
Thus, once the Athlete or other Person establishes the departure by a balance of probability, the Athlete or other Person’s burden on causat ion is the somewhat lower standard of proof – “could reasonably have caused.” If the Athlete or other Person satisfies these standa rds, the burden shifts to ILS to prove to the c... |
15 Comment to Article 3.2.3: Departures from an International Standard or other rule unrelated to Sample collection or handling, Adverse Passport Finding, or Athlete notification relating to whereabouts failure or B Sample opening – e.g., the International Standard for Education, International Standard for the Protec... |
Similarly, ILS’ violation of the document referenced in Article 20.7.7 of the Code shall not constitute a defense to an anti -doping rule violation. |
ILS Ant -Doping Rules 2021 Page 11 of 64 (ii) a departure from the International Standard for Results Management or International Standard for Testing and Investigations related to an Adverse Pa ssport Finding which could reasonably have caused an anti-doping rule violation, in which case ILS shall have the bu... |
3.2.4 The facts established by a decision of a court or professional disciplinary tribunal of competent jurisdiction which is not the subject of a pending appeal shall be irrebuttable evidence against the Athlete or other Person to whom the decision pertained of those facts unless the Athlete or other Person est... |
3.2.5 The hearing panel in a hearing on an anti -doping rule violation may draw an inference adverse to the Athlete or other Person who is asserted to have committed an anti -doping rule violation based on the Athlete’s or other Person’s refusal, after a request made in a reasonable time in advance of the hearin... |
ARTICLE 4 THE PROHIBITED LIST 4.1 Incorporation of the Prohibited List These Anti -Doping Rules incorporate the Prohibited List , which is published and revised by WADA as described in Article 4.1 of the Code . |
Unless provided otherwise in the Prohibited List or a revision, the Prohibited List and revisions shall go into effect under these Anti -Doping Rules three (3) months after publication by WADA , without requiring any further action by ILS or its National Federations. |
All Athletes and other Persons shall be bound by the Prohibited List , and any revisions thereto, from the date they go into effect, without further formality. |
It is the responsibility of all Athletes and other Persons to familiarize themselves with the most up -to-date version of the Prohibited List and all revisions theret o. |
16 Comment to Article 3.2.3 (iii): ILS would meet its burden to establish that such departure did not cause the Adverse Analytical Finding by showing that, for example, the B Sample opening and analysis were observed by an independent witness and no irregularities were observed. |
ILS Ant -Doping Rules 2021 Page 12 of 64 ILS shall provide its National Federations with the most recent version of the Prohibited List . |
Each National Federation shall in turn ensure that its members , and the constituents of its members , are also provided with the most recent version of the Prohibited List .17 4.2 Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods Identified on the Prohibited List 4.2.1 Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods ... |
The Prohibited List may be expanded by WADA for a particular sport. |
Prohibited Substance s and Prohibited Methods may be included in the Prohibited List by general category (e.g., anabolic agents) or by specific reference to a pa rticular substance or method.18 4.2.2 Specified Substances or Specified Methods For purposes of the application of Article 10 , all Prohibited Substances ... |
No Prohibited Method shall be a Specified Method unless it is specifically identified as a Specified Method on the Prohibited List.19 4.2.3 Substances of Abuse For purposes of applying Article 10 , Substances of Abuse shall include those Prohibited Substances which are specifically identified as Substances of... |
4.3 WADA’s Determination of the Prohibited List WADA’s determination of the Prohibited Subst ances and Prohibited Methods that will be included on the Prohibited List , the classification of substances into categories on the Prohibited List , the classification of a substance as prohibited at all times or In-Co... |
17 Comment to Articl e 4.1: The current Prohibited List is available on WADA's website at https://www.wada -ama.org . |
The Prohibited List will be revised and published on an expedited basis whenever the need arises. |
However, for the sake of predictability, a new Prohibited List will be published every year whether or not changes have been made. |
18 Comment to Article 4.2.1: Out-of-Competition Use of a substance which is only prohibited In -Competition is not an anti -doping rule violation unless an Adverse Analytical Finding for the substance or its Metabolites or Markers is reported for a Sample colle cted In-Competition. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.